Technology

59243 readers

3437 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

311

Nikki Haley walks back her demand that social media ban anonymous posters after facing GOP backlash (abcnews.go.com)

submitted 1 year ago by rob299@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sounds like ones demands have changed, or atleast they got a hold of themselves. whatever lead to them walking back on this, it's the end of another battle for internet privacy, but not the end of the war. As apps continue to track you in new mysterious ways behind their closed sourced software, and the governments continue to crack down on encryption. Anonymous names are important for privacy too.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Excerpt from the article:

By Wednesday, Haley had somewhat amended her stance. Asked on CNBC if she was advocating a ban on all anonymous social media posts, Haley said that, while she believed “life would be more civil if we were able to do that,” she was focused on foreign-based actors, not U.S. citizens.

“I don’t mind anonymous American people having free speech; what I don’t like is anonymous Russians and Chinese and Iranians having free speech,” Haley said, not explaining how she would recommend that social media companies parse those users.

Saying DeSantis “wants to let Chinese propaganda machines run wild on social media without any restrictions,” Haley campaign spokesperson Olivia Perez-Cubas on Wednesday added that the onus should be on social media companies to better police anonymous, foreign-based accounts.

“What Nikki doesn’t support is letting the Chinese and Iranians create anonymous accounts to spread chaos and anti-American filth among our people,” she said. “Social media companies have to do a way better job policing that.”

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Has this person ever seen what a news comments section with a "real names required" rule looks like? They're just as much cesspools as anywhere else. People don't care whether their names are attached to their on-line comments.

[–] tomo@reddit.azumanga.gay 7 points 1 year ago

yeah real name or not people are gonna be horrible to each other if they want to already
anonymity will deffo make it more desirable to for the ones who are on the edge tho

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

I wonder how she justifies the " Life would be more civil if we weren't anonymous" with her Republican senator counterparts threatening to fight that union lead.

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

She picked foreign threat actors who have been boogiemen to the American people for like 2-3 decades at least in order to not seem racist/xenophobic in this. But if the American government doesn't have the right to impinge on the free speech of their citizens, they don't have the right to do so to foreigners either regardless of whether their governments are an active threat.

Making them use their real names doesn't stop them from stirring the pot. Doesn't make Americans less susceptible to propaganda or influence from foreign threat actors.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not a constitutional scholar, but is that true? Extremely skeptical of this:

But if the American government doesn't have the right to impinge on the free speech of their citizens, they don't have the right to do so to foreigners either regardless of whether their governments are an active threat.

It’s not like non-citizens enjoy all the rights of citizens. Why would non-citizens living in a foreign country enjoy the free speech rights of US citizens?

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Technically anyone entering the country is awarded the same rights and freedoms (such as given in the bill of rights ) regardless of whether they enter legally or illegally. But anyone outside the borders of the US is not subject to the laws or government oversight of the US Government (with the exception of citizens traveling or living in other countries). So yes. Technically yes. True.

I'll try to find a source.

Edit:

https://www.aclu.org/documents/rights-immigrants-aclu-position-paper#:~:text=But%20once%20here%2C%20even%20undocumented,legally%20are%20subject%20to%20deportation.

"In decisions spanning more than a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution’s guarantees apply to every person within U.S. borders, including “aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful.”

" But once here, even undocumented immigrants have the right to freedom of speech and religion, the right to be treated fairly, the right to privacy, and the other fundamental rights U.S. citizens enjoy."

[–] tomo@reddit.azumanga.gay 2 points 1 year ago

anonymity for me but not for thee

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

deleted